In any church conflict it is important to find the core issue and the common source

If you are a leader whose church is in conflict, there are two issues it is helpful to understand. First, what is the actual reason for the conflict, and second, who is at the center of the conflict? 

Understanding the true nature of the conflict is often difficult because the presenting issues are often not the real issues. If one tries to solve the presenting issues without understanding what the actual issues are, there will not be a resolution, because even if you solve the presenting issues, the core issue remains untouched.

I am convinced that most church conflict has nothing to do with the surface or presenting issues and everything to do with power and control issues that lie behind the surface issues. This has to do with decision-making power in the church and control of the church. It is an agenda to force a certain decision or direction hidden behind other presenting issues. Often it is cloaked in spiritual language such as the "good of the church," but at its core, it is about power and control.

How does one know if they are working with the presenting issue or a deeper control issue? One of the key markers is whether those who are complaining and making noise are open to rational discussion and compromise, or if they insist on getting their way. If it is the latter, you are most likely dealing with a power issue, and unless you cede to their demands, the conflict will not stop. If you do cave to their demands, you have allowed power brokers with an agenda to win the day and that is always unhealthy in the church.

Often in church conflict it feels like everyone is involved because loud voices prevail. The truth of the matter is that power games in the church are rarely widespread, but like power games everywhere, can be traced back to an individual or a small group of individuals. I call these the voice behind the voices. Power games in the church are never a general group but always have an individual or a small group of individuals behind them and there is usually one central figure. They usually stay in the background and feed discontent, but the common voice one hears from others is an indicator that this is not random conflict but has a leader or leaders behind it. Common language and common attitudes are clear indicators.

How do you determine who is at the core of the conflict? Listen to the language, have a lot of conversations, ask a lot of questions, and eventually you connect the dots toward a common source. Unless you understand the real issue and can deal with the common source, one has no chance of mitigating the conflict.

We are often naive in the church regarding conflict. We too easily believe presenting issues, not wanting to believe that power politics might be present in our congregation. In addition, we are too slow in dealing with the true source of the conflict because we are dealing with people who hide behind spiritual language. None of that, however, changes the damage that they are doing to the church. Power politics in the church destroys unity, hurts leadership and people with agendas hurt the body. The proof that you are dealing with power politics is when you get to the core group and they will not live under the authority of the pastor or elders. Those who don't respond to appropriate authority are playing power politics. 

The ultimate power play is simply to call for the resignation of the pastor and the board. Here is where motives are nakedly plain. I was the pastor of a church where this once happened and church chairman in another church where it happened. In both cases, the real issues had been revealed, and the core parties had been exposed. Their last stand was to try to force the leadership out of office. When they lost their bid, they left the church, clearly unwilling to live under authority. When someone pulls a power play in the church and walks when they lose it is an indication this was about power and control in most instances.

The bottom line? As Jesus said, be innocent as doves and wise as serpents. Don't be fooled! Be smart. Be wise. Be prayerful. Act carefully.

It is often helpful to get outside counsel from someone who can give objective feedback and who does not have a stake in the outcome. That is often a threat to the dissenters who are counting on their influence to win the day, and now there is a new level of accountability.

Six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome in church conflict

After many years of working with churches that find themselves in conflictual situations, I have concluded that there are six non-negotiable principles for a successful outcome.

First, an outside facilitator is usually necessary. The nature of conflict is that people take sides, making it very difficult for anyone within to play the role of a neutral mediator. In fact, the larger the conflict, the more critical it is that the individual you bring in is trusted by both sides to have the best interests of the church at heart. The sooner you bring someone in when it is clear that the situation is dangerous, the better.

An outside facilitator must come with a neutral stance and be willing to genuinely listen to all sides, with the desire to find the truth. When I have played this role, I made it clear to the board as a precondition that I would listen attentively, gather information, and share my conclusions with the congregation without seeking board approval for that report first. If they were unwilling to agree to this, I would not help them because factions often exist on the board level as well and I had to be impartial in my findings and recommendations.

The board and the congregation still had to decide whether they would accept my recommendations but I needed the ability to share what I learned openly and honestly. The rest was up to them - and I was of course willing to help them with the next steps.

I cannot overemphasize that a neutral outside individual or individuals can be critical in church conflict resolution. When I held that role, I had to convey some difficult messages to various groups within the church, and I needed to do so honestly, fairly, and without worrying about how people would react. When reporting back to the congregation, I would always ask them how candid they wanted me to be. They would say very candid and I would respond, "I will do that but understand that I will likely make all of you unhappy with something I say." Getting their permission to speak freely and warning them that my findings and recommendations might not be pleasing to them gave me the freedom to speak openly and gave them a heads up that it might not always be to their liking.

Here is the thing. Spin does not work in conflict. Only truth works - hard as it might be to hear.

Second, the issues that are fueling the conflict need to be brought into the light. Conflict thrives in the shadows, in gossip, in cliques, in assumptions, and behind the scenes. Bringing all the competing agendas, attitudes, and positions into the light and allowing all members of the congregation to understand what is being said, what is happening, and what the issues are takes the mystique out of the situation, allowing everyone to respond from a position of knowledge. It also removes the power of those who have an agenda but have not been willing to make it public, instead exerting pressure from behind the scenes. Getting everything on the table allows all stakeholders to understand what is happening and to have a voice in resolving the issues. Ironically, those who are most vociferous in their opinions often exaggerate their support when, in fact, if all facts were known, the majority would not agree. Bringing the issues, actions, and words out of the shadows is key to successful resolution.

Third. Reconciliation is always preferable to disunity. This is actually a hard concept for many who have taken a position in church conflict. First, our natural tendency is to take a hard line, and once we have told others about our own line in the sand, it is humbling to change our position. Second, the longer the conflict persists, the more we tend to view members of the opposing side as evil, dishonest, and disingenuous, with bad motives. Once we demonize people, it becomes difficult to envision reconciliation as a possibility. 

Not being willing to consider reconciliation is to make a mockery of God's reconciliation with us and His call for us to be reconcilers. Speaking of church conflict, this is what Paul had to say to the Corinthians. "I appeal to you brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought (1 Corinthians 1:10)." 

In Ephesians 4:1-6 Paul writes, "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." Having said that, it may not be possible to reconcile and stay together. Sometimes it means that we part ways and speak well of one another.

Fourth, ground rules need to be established. One of the most incendiary fuels in all conflict is the absence of ground rules - what is acceptable and what is not. For a list of the ground rules that I recommend, see my blog, Negotiating church conflict in a healthy manner. Or, if you want to keep it very simple, look back at the passage in Ephesians 4:1-6, where he says to be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace. When you think about it, these characteristics are almost always lacking during conflict. What gets in our way? Pride, wanting to get our own way, anger, and our emotions.

Five, you may not convince everyone. There are people who don't want to reconcile. There are people whose pride exceeds their humility, and they have no desire to seek a win-win solution. 

In working with churches in conflict, I don't do very much to try to convince the unconvincible, even if they have the loudest voices. 

I am seeking individuals who are committed to peace and reason and are willing to collaborate in promoting unity within the church. This does not mean that the issues that have caused disunity are swept under the rug. To the contrary, as principle two states, they are all on the table, and those that need to be addressed are addressed. To do that successfully, however, it requires men and women of peace and reason, whose personal agendas do not cloud their emotions.

Who is most likely to leave in a church conflict? Those who have taken a hard stand and cannot or will not compromise that stand. Frankly, it is good for them to leave because they will simply contribute to ongoing conflict if they are not willing to come together with the rest of the congregation.

Sixth: It is a process. Church conflict does not start overnight, and it does not get settled overnight. In some cases, it may take a year to bring the church back to health. The benefits of doing so far outweigh the trauma of either a church split (which damages churches for years to come), a power play by a faction in the church (which causes huge trauma to a church and a significant lack of trust), or not dealing with it at all, which dooms the church to later issues.

What is needed for a healthy process is a willingness of the congregation to work together, recognizing that how they handle their differences will either enhance or diminish the reputation of Jesus. If his reputation is at stake—and it is—I will do all I can to enhance it.

Ten principles for handling conflict in the church

One of the observations I have made in working with churches that are experiencing conflict is that we generally don't do it very well. Conflict itself is not inherently bad, provided it involves differing ideas on how to accomplish our mission. The issue is always how we handle the conflict or our differences. It is poor handling of differences that gets us in trouble, not the differences themselves, which are merely differing perspectives on what should be done. That being said, here are some principles that can help us negotiate conflict or differences in a healthy manner.

One: Disagreement and expressing that disagreement is not wrong. Some are afraid to share their opinions because they have been told that to do so is gossip. It is not. All of us have the right to share our views in the church, provided we do so in a healthy manner. It is unhealthy to try to shut down discussion in the church. It is OK to talk. It's OK to express our views. It is OK to differ with others.

Two: Gossip is sin. Gossip is "idle talk or rumor, especially about personal or private affairs of others" (Wikipedia). Gossip differs from sharing our opinion, as it concerns the motivations or actions of others and is generally destructive in nature. Scriptures are clear that gossip is wrong. Gossip includes questioning the motives of others, passing along third-party information as fact, and denigrating others. Disagreement or stating our views is not gossip; it is simply expressing what we think.

Three. Robust dialogue is healthy. Robust dialogue means that we can discuss any issue, except for personal attacks or hidden agendas. There are differing views within congregations on a variety of issues. It is good to talk about those things, but to do so without personal attacks, hidden agendas, or language that inflames rather than informs. Healthy leaders invite healthy dialogue and listen to those who speak.

Four: Unity in diversity is critical. Unity within the body of Christ is a high value in Scripture. Congregations are made up of different views, opinions, social and ethnic backgrounds, but it is the Holy Spirit that binds us together as one. Each of us has the same Holy Spirit in his or her heart , and that spirit is a spirit of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, and self-control. If we live in His Spirit, we can have differences and still remain united as one body. As Paul put it in Ephesians 4:3, "Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."

Five: Being able to disagree and stay in relationship is good Emotional Intelligence and demonstrates the work of the Holy Spirit. Each of us has preferences and opinions on many things in the church. What we want to be able to do is state those positions while remaining in fellowship and friendship with those who hold differing positions. This is not always easy, but it is Biblical.

Six: By extension, marginalizing or demonizing those who disagree with us is bad Emotional Intelligence and does not reflect the Holy Spirit. It is one thing to disagree with someone. It is another to believe that they are bad people because they think differently and to allow our differences to shatter our relationships, trust, or to see them as evil. This does not reflect the will of the Holy Spirit.

Seven: Taking on the offense of others is foolish and wrong. My best friend has an issue with someone in the church, so out of friendship, I take up their offense and allow their issue to become my issue. This is foolish and wrong because I have allowed my friend to alienate me from others when I have no personal reason to do so. Nor can I resolve an issue that is not my issue. It happens in families and congregations, and it contributes to greater conflict.

Eight: The church is the Bride of Christ, and therefore, we must display the attitude of Christ toward one another even when we differ from one another. The church is unlike any other organization, for it is the Bride of Jesus and His chosen instrument for reaching the world. We of all people need to be His people in good times and in hard times. Paul writes in Philippians 2:4, "Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others." 

Nine: Forgiveness is often needed when we have conflict. We need not apologize for having differing views and perspectives but we do need to apologize when our words, attitudes or actions get the best of us and we say or do things that are not pleasing to God. I have often had to apologize in times of conflict. God is pleased when we keep short accounts and forgive those who need forgiveness and seek forgiveness when we need it.

Ten: Pray diligently! When we focus on ourselves we want to be right and win. When we focus on God we start to see those who differ with us in a different light and desire God to win. In prayer, our hearts are often softened and changed, our humility is increased and our desire for a Godly solution is heightened.

There will be conflict this side of heaven. Lets do all we can to handle it well.

When we take on the issues of others rather than keeping our own counsel

Some of the most challenging situations I faced as an organizational leader involved individuals who would call my office angry, unhappy, and irrational over issues they had no firsthand knowledge of. They had taken up someone else's problem and gone on a crusade.

The reason these are such difficult situations is this. First, because they don't have firsthand knowledge, one cannot have a rational conversation about what really happened. All they know is what they "heard" happened, and in the context of anger, hurt, and raw emotions. Thus, this is not a conversation about facts but perceived facts and emotional reactions. Conversations that cannot be focused on objective facts are usually conversations that cannot be resolved. 

Second, the conversations are crazy-making because those who take up others' offenses usually do not reveal that fact. It is clear from the conversation that there is an underlying issue (someone else's offense), but it is never stated, making it challenging to address. If I sense there is an underlying issue, I will often probe as to what it is and try to get to the heart of the matter. Dealing with side issues does not help one resolve the real underlying issues. Unless that is put on the table, there is no resolution.

Third, since these conversations are not about facts due to the absence of firsthand knowledge, they ultimately become about perceptions and anger. Perceptions of others are usually wrong, and anger cannot be resolved without dealing with facts. And facts cannot be established without those with firsthand knowledge present. 

Finally, these are no-win conversations because those who take up the offense of others have no way to move on because they cannot resolve "facts." So while the person whose offense they picked up moves on eventually, those who picked up the offense do not and cannot.

When there is conflict, the goal must always be to achieve reconciliation. The goal is to come to an understanding and achieve a level of peace. When I take up someone else's offence, however, I am doing just the opposite, enlarging the conflict rather than minimizing it: I cannot solve it for others; my own anger spills over to others; I have no objectivity in the situation, and because it is not my issue, I cannot find resolution. It is a no-win situation and does nothing to bring reconciliation or peace.

Picking up someone else's offense is foolish, demonstrates poor EQ, and causes relational havoc beyond what is necessary. It is one thing to seek to help resolve an issue in a healthy and productive manner. But once you take up another's offense, there is no good way out.  

One of the hallmarks of good emotional intelligence is that we can empathize with others without getting enmeshed in their issues. This does not mean that we do not care, provide counsel, and support. It does mean that we don't allow the problems of others to become "our" issues. 

A key to this is what I call "keeping my own counsel." Everyone has a perspective on issues, but they are not always accurate or fair. It is their perspective. This is especially true in relationships. I often hear negative things about others. In line with keeping my own counsel, I seek to listen and, when appropriate, ask questions, but ultimately I must make my own judgments based on my own personal experience rather than on the perspective of others. It is not wise, fair, or healthy for me to simply take the opinions of others when my experience does not line up with theirs or when I have no firsthand knowledge. 

In addition, I want to avoid enmeshment because I cannot solve other people's issues for them. I can encourage them to resolve their issues with whoever they have those issues. I can offer to mediate a meeting between them for resolution. But ultimately, I am responsible for my problems and not for theirs. All manner of relational chaos is caused when I take up the offense of others without firsthand knowledge and based on their information alone. 

Getting sucked into the issues of others takes a relational breakdown between two people and multiplies it among others, where they were never part of the original breakdown and have simply taken on the stuff of others rather than keeping their own counsel. This is often the stuff of organizational conflict and church splits. What was an issue between two parties becomes an issue between multiple parties, and what was a minor problem now becomes a significant issue. What was complicated now has become exceedingly complex. What might have been resolvable is now often not resolvable.

When we have issues with others, we always have the choice as to whether we draw others in and seek to influence their opinion of the one we have problems with, or whether we keep our own counsel, seek to resolve the situation, but not to influence the opinions of others. It is not my place to hurt the reputation of others, but to ensure that my own behavior is healthy. 

This is all about demonstrating wisdom in our relationships with others, living with healthy emotional intelligence, and being peace makers rather than stoking conflict.

When none of your options are good options

Let me pose an interesting dilemma. There are times that we face situations in our ministries where a crisis has occurred, or a decision must be made, and all available options seem to be bad options. 

Here is an example: A financial crisis needs to be addressed, but the process will be painful due to the lack of viable solutions. Any and all decisions on the table are tough choices that will inevitably bring some kind of pain. Or you have a personnel decision that needs to be dealt with, but there seems to be no upside in the choices you have in dealing with it. There are times when the only options we have are bad.

I have seen a variety of responses to situations where all the options are bad. One response is for leaders to not act at all because they want a good option, and they see none. Humanly speaking, this is understandable as none of us want to deal with the fallout of bad choices. Of course, this simply delays the inevitable, and the options rarely get better by waiting. 

The exception is with personnel issues, where waiting can be a viable option if behaviors known to a few become evident to many by giving the issue time, thus minimizing the fallout when a decision is made. However, this is not ignoring the issue but choosing to wait on the issue - a strategic difference.

A second response is to face the bad options realistically and choose the best of the bad options. This is often true in financial situations or where a staff member has caused a situation that is going to be painful to address, no matter what. 

I recently moderated an international situation where neither party could expect a favorable outcome due to past decisions made by others. While closure was needed, it was going to be a closure that both parties had to swallow hard to accept. This is often the case in church conflict situations as well, where the conflict has become so complicated and contentious that in the short term, all that will be experienced is pain. 

There is good news, however. If leaders wisely choose a course of action, knowing they have no good current options and that it will cause short-term pain, they can achieve long-term gains simply by being willing to do the hard work of tackling the issue despite the pain in the process. Choosing the best of bad options today can lead to closure and health down the line. 

At times, leadership is nothing more than choosing between bad and painful options. But being willing to make the choice for the sake of a healthier future.

A quick start to understanding the culture of the organization you are a part of

Take a moment to reflect on the organization you are part of. Answer these questions with a simple yes or no. You might also consider asking a few colleagues to do the same and then compare your responses. Be honest, and don't worry about your answers. If you are a leader, remember that your staff as a group may have a different perspective than you do. But questions like these can help you at least think more deeply about the culture that currently exists in your organization. Answer with a simple yes or no.

• We have a remarkably healthy culture in our organization.
• Most relationships here can be characterized as healthy.
• I genuinely enjoy working here and intend to remain with the organization.
• We can engage in robust dialogue where any issue can be discussed openly without personal agendas or hidden attacks.
• Staff members are listened to and actively invited to participate in decision making where appropriate.
• Some individuals here do not treat others well, showing unkindness and creating difficulties for their colleagues.
• Our mission, values, direction, and expected behaviors are clearly defined.
• I can articulate our mission, values, direction, and behaviors quickly.
• There is alignment throughout the organization concerning these principles.
• There are some areas with an unhealthy culture within the organization.
• All people on our staff have an appropriate voice at the table.
• We confront and address toxic behaviors effectively.
• Our staff is highly engaged in their work.
• I would describe our leaders as humble, approachable and non-defensive.
• My supervisor knows the name of my spouse (if married) and my children.
• There exists an underlying level of cynicism among staff members towards leaders.
• My supervisor often engages me in meaningful dialogue and listens rather than issuing unilateral directives.
• I feel empowered to perform my job effectively, with minimal micromanagement.
• There are individuals in the organization whose competencies are questionable and who create challenges for those around them.
• At times, I feel more like a means to an end rather than a unique individual with particular gifts and abilities.
• My strengths are fully utilized in my work.
• I am free to share any concerns regarding the company with my supervisor without holding anything back.
• I believe I am compensated fairly for my contributions
• If there were a job opening, I would encourage my best friend to apply.
• I would appreciate discussions about the importance of a healthy culture and its implications for our organization.
• If asked, I could identify at least three areas of our culture that could be improved. 
• The dominant culture actively works to welcome, include, and appreciate members of minority cultures within our organization.
• Knowing what I know now, I would apply for my job again.
• We strive to ensure that our portrayal aligns with our true identity.
• We allow poor behavior to go unchallenged.
• I would describe our leaders as level five: humble, serving their staff well, open and non-defensive, and contributing to a great workplace.
• We have unspoken rules that are only revealed when one crosses a hidden line.

Having considered these questions, what are your observations about the culture of the organization you are a part of?

·   

·    

Healthy cultures are built by humble leaders

Healthy leaders can build amazingly healthy cultures if they set their minds to it and make it a priority. There are several traits of healthy leaders that can directly contribute to making the culture you have better, healthier, more effective, and better serve your mission. It starts with a posture of humility.

If ego is the enemy, then humility is your best friend. While some may view humility as a sign of weakness, it is, in fact, a sign of strength: the strength to see things as they truly are, the strength to listen to perspectives we may not naturally agree with, and the strength to accept difficult feedback. At every level of life, humility represents strength under control. Only truly strong individuals can embody humility.

Humble leaders embrace the belief that they have nothing to prove, nothing to lose, and nothing to hide. They don't need to be defensive. Instead, they focus on guiding a mission rather than pursuing a personal agenda. They lead collaboratively, recognizing that diverse perspectives contribute to the best solutions.

A key trait of a humble leader is their genuine care and concern for others. Unlike ego-driven leaders, who use people to achieve their own goals, humble leaders prioritize serving others. They strive to help individuals reach their full potential while working towards a shared mission. This approach fosters an environment where people are valued, their talents are nurtured, and the collective mission is successfully achieved. Humble leaders genuinely value and care about their team members!

The humility of leaders fosters a culture of humility throughout the entire organization, creating a powerful ripple effect. When an organization believes it has everything figured out and acts from a place of pride, it often becomes resistant to change. In contrast, organizations embodying corporate humility are more likely to seek better solutions and embrace innovation and new ideas. There is no substitute for humble leadership.

The secret of being a self defined leader who can also stay in relationship

One of the key elements of Emotional Intelligence is the ability to negotiate relationships. It is the inability to negotiate relationships successfully that is at the root of a great deal of unnecessary conflict. One of the critical skills of good EQ is being self-defined. A self-defined individual can tell you what they think even when they know that you will disagree with their position. They don’t insist that you see the world as they do, and they are OK if you don’t.

However, the second part of self-definition is also important. I can disagree with you and still be in a relationship with you. Think about that in terms of the political divisions that are tearing up America and much of the world.

This is what it means to be able to negotiate relationships in a healthy way. Poor EQ will state a position and insist that you agree with it. If you don’t, you are marginalized and demonized. After all, you don’t get it. Good EQ, on the other hand, can negotiate relationships with people who are very different from us. This skill is needed in a diverse world, whether inside or outside the workplace. The ability to disagree, engage in honest, candid dialogue, and still stay connected would prevent a lot of conflict. 

This ability for leaders is crucial to creating cultures of open and candid dialogue. By taking a position that may not be popular (which is how all innovation or improvement usually begins) a leader is encouraging others to do the same. It is then in the clash of these views and perspectives that the best solutions are typically found. The alternative is the common groupthink behavior that stifles and hinders progress. 

To this point, healthy leaders don’t have a problem with apologizing when necessary. Even when they don’t really need to, they do it because it will alleviate stress or controversy. I recall a time when I made what turned out to be a controversial decision (the right decision, but one that was hard for my organization to swallow). Being a blogger, I wrote a blog post for my staff entitled “Just get over it!” My intention was to explain the decision further and then encourage people to move on.

Unfortunately, many took offense at the blog title. I apologized (though I didn’t need to, but I wanted to lower the angst) and wrote a new blog titled “Build a Bridge and get over it.” It was a way to apologize for how my prior communication had come across and give me another chance to move us forward. It worked, but I had to apologize for it to work.

Healthy leaders keep short accounts. One of my practices is to “Walk toward the barking dog.” If I have offended someone or created an issue, rather than walking the other direction, I will engage the individual, seek understanding, and do whatever is necessary to put the issue to rest so we can move on.

These may seem like small things, but they are not. Much of our leadership capital is based on relationships. The ability to negotiate healthy win-win relationships is a key to good leadership and reflects good EQ.

Becoming aware of our own Leadership derailers

If you lead others, there is a good chance that you also struggle with leadership derailers. Actually, every leader does. The question is not whether they have potential derailers but whether they know what their derailers might be. 

Derailers are behaviors, words, actions, or responses that prevent us from acting maturely as leaders.  For instance, the CEO who does not like to be challenged and responds defensively when they are, shutting down critical discussions that senior teams need to have, is dealing with derailment behavior. His/her defensive behavior is a derailer. The behavior is immature leadership, which could threaten their ability to lead well.

Leaders who do not accept and even solicit feedback from others exhibit derailing tendencies. Their lack of receptiveness to the input of those they work with prevents them from seeing themselves clearly and the state of the organization they lead. Their inability to listen to others and accept feedback creates a toxic environment because candid dialogue cannot be had, and real issues cannot be addressed.

Ironically, it takes the input of others to help us understand our derailing tendencies, where our leadership is coming from immature emotional intelligence rather than mature. It highlights the importance of leaders being inquisitive about their own emotional intelligence, receptive to feedback from others, and committed to addressing the derailing tendencies that negatively impact their team members. 

Here is something to consider. Most derailers are not about competency but rather about the emotional intelligence of the leader and how their EQ hurts their leadership, the organization, and those they work with.

It is relatively easy to recognize the derailers in other leaders because we have experienced them. It is often harder to see them in ourselves because we are used to our tendencies. This is where we need people around us who we give permission to speak into our lives and leadership. 

Leadership derailers can be simple, such as the tendency to not solicit feedback from others or ask the kinds of questions that would give us insights into what is truly happening in the organization or team we lead. They can also be more complex, such as narcissistic tendencies that elevate our own leadership at the expense of others. In either case, it comes down to an EQ issue where we have a needed growth opportunity. Derailers hurt our leadership, and they hurt those we lead if not recognized and addressed. 

When I led teams and organizations, I would periodically ask my associates if I did anything that really irritated them. Is there anything I am doing that you think others should do? Is there anything you wish you could discuss with someone, but haven't felt free to do so? In this way, I was being proactive in soliciting feedback and permitting them at the same time to speak candidly.

In the Intelligent Leadership coaching of the John Mattone Global organization, we help leaders understand their leadership styles' relative maturity or immaturity to move toward healthier leadership. This is achieved through a combination of healthy discussions, testing, 360-degree feedback, personal development plans, and a coaching process designed to foster the learning of new behaviors.

The challenge for anyone who leads others is to give permission and opportunity for those around us to speak candidly with us about potential derailers in our leadership. It could make the difference between a highly successful leadership tenure and one that comes off the tracks prematurely.

 

Evangelical deconstruction: not of faith but of the church.

I spoke this week to a close friend struggling deeply with the church. He is discouraged, disillusioned, and tired from his years of church leadership: Trying to see issues addressed that needed to be addressed, trying to move the church toward TOV (Goodness), trying to deal with massive dysfunction at the leadership and staff level, and getting nowhere. 

The result is that while he does not question his faith, he is asking much about the church scene and whether he wants to have any part in it. I would describe him as tired, disillusioned, and cynical about his church experiences. 

We have all read a great deal about Christians who are deconstructing their faith. For some time, I have been convinced that there is another, more significant issue: The deconstruction not of faith but of what the church is and should be. If I were to identify the kinds of issues involved, I would look at the following common problems:

• Senior church leaders who are narcissistic to the core create a toxic atmosphere on staff while proclaiming the love of Jesus from the stage. 

• The end result of narcissistic leaders is that many people get hurt: run over, marginalized, and, if they disagree with something, run out. No one cares. 

• Church boards do not hold such leaders accountable, allowing the toxicity to continue and hurting people. It is easier not to rock the boat, especially if the numbers are growing! 

• On Sunday mornings, the church presents a "face" by what happens on the stage. It is happy, optimistic, faith-filled, and Spirit-led. Behind the facade is a toxic staff and a board that facilitates the toxicity to continue. In other words, there is no alignment between the stage, the staff, and the board regarding health or spirituality.

• Rather than focusing on the two cardinal commands for the church to love God and love people, the staff creates programs that give people the illusion that these things are happening. Still, it is about the program, not about individual practice.

• There is little to no disciplemaking strategy in the church, even though the mandate to create disciples is central to the mandate Jesus gave the church.

• While the church is always looking for volunteers for their programs, there is not a culture where people are invited to find their gifts and use them for the Kingdom in meaningful ways. Instead, come to the welcome center, and we will tell you where you can fit. All ministry is tightly controlled. 

• The prayer and spiritual commitment of staff and board are virtually nonexistent. There is no time for such things or that great an interest. There is too much time on programming to spend extraneous time on spiritual issues. 

• The stage is performance rather than worship. The difference between a rock concert and worship has become blurred. Teaching is a TED Talk of self-help rather than an exposition of the Scriptures. 

• First impressions give the impression that we are one happy family, while the reality behind the scenes is much different. In fact, if you choose to challenge the system, you quickly find that you are no longer a part of the family, and you are discarded. Over time, the bodies pile up on the side of the road. 

None of this fits with the picture of the church in the New Testament. Sure, the church had its problems, which is why we have many of the New Testament epistles. Still, the biblical image is far from what it often looks like in many corners of American Evangelicalism.

Where does this leave the church? It leaves untaught congregations, discouraged leaders who long for something different, a spiritual drought where there ought to be spiritual life, people controlled rather than released into their faith and gifting, and the loss of some of the best who leave in discouragement after realizing that things will not change. 

In fact, one of the most discouraging indictments of the church today is the number of church boards that have no clue about their responsibilities as church leaders or any sense of ecclesiology (what the church is all about from the New Testament). Many have not read anything on either topic, yet they are ultimately responsible for the church's health. No wonder the church is in trouble. In growing numbers, senior pastors have little theological training. They are pragmatic but not theologically astute. And too often, cannot lead healthy teams. 

I personally know many individuals who no longer attend church after being deeply hurt. Many were church leaders who simply gave up over time. They have not given up on their faith, but they have given up on the church as it exists in American Evangelicalism. To be sure, many churches don't fit the description above, and to be equally clear, leaving the church altogether is not what God desires. However, these factors contribute to a significant deconstruction of faith—or its practice.  

We have lost the Biblical vision for the church in our search to find "success." However, the success we have seen is often a failure if measured against the New Testament teaching of the church.

Ten ways that leaders can sabotage organizational culture

 

Leaders can inadvertently sabotage the culture they desire to create in their team or organization with behaviors that may seem insignificant to them but are very significant to those they lead. They are careless behaviors that leaders that demotivate those they lead because they send a message that their team is not valued or important.

One: Blowing off meetings, showing up late, or coming unprepared for scheduled meetings. I once worked with a colleague who regularly did not show up for scheduled meetings or, if he did, would come in 15 to 30 minutes late. This message was that I was not valued and my time was unimportant. I am sure my colleague thought nothing of it, after all, he valued flexibility but it became so common that the staff just expected that he may not show up. It was aggravating, to say the least. 

Healthy leaders value others' time, show up on time, and are fully present for the meeting at hand. 

Two: Telling people what to do rather than engaging in dialogue to understand the perspectives and ideas of staff. Leaders who simply tell staff what to do create a culture where staff are devalued and their wisdom left on the table. In these cultures, the only voice that really counts is the leader. Eventually, the best people leave the organization rather than work in an environment where their expertise is not valued.

Healthy leaders don't assume they have the answers; rather than telling, they dialogue to understand staff thinking and perspectives and devise better solutions.  

Three: When things go wrong, blame people rather than ask if some processes or systems could be fixed to prevent such failures. Blame is a terrible motivator. It assumes the worst motives when poor motives are rarely the reason for failure. In most cases, underlying issues explain why things go wrong, and failure can be a learning opportunity rather than a blaming opportunity.

Healthy leaders know that things will not always go well. Rather than blaming others, they seek to fix the underlying issue so that the "disconnect" does not happen again.

Four: Not taking the time to listen and ask good questions. Leaders often lack valuable information because they don't ask questions or take the time to listen, which means they assume they know what they need to know. This is not only a faulty notion, but it is also disempowering to staff who have insight that a leader does not have and desire that their voice be heard for the betterment of the organization.

Healthy leaders know many things they don't know, so they intentionally ask many questions and listen well. 

Five: Being quick to criticize and slow to encourage and lift up. Critical leaders create cultures that are fear-based rather than grace-based. Fear-based cultures do not breed healthy dialogue and the necessary give-and-take of ideas. There are often reasons that people have done something that a leader is unaware of unless he/she first asks questions and enters into a conversation. Leaders who criticize carefully and lift up regularly create a healthier culture than those who do the opposite.

Healthy leaders are slow to criticize and quick to encourage and enter into constructive conversation.

Six: Changing one's mind after the work has been completed by staff. I have watched senior leaders give an assignment to staff to work on a particular program, and then when they present the plan, the leader dismisses it because he/she now has a better idea. In one case, the work had taken the better part of a year. This was not because their work was not good but because the leader simply had a new and better idea. This kind of behavior is very demotivating to staff and indicates that the leader did not give good direction on the front end, did not stay engaged along the way, and was willing to dismiss the work out of hand at the end. Leaders who change direction frequently create chaos rather than stability.

Healthy leaders give good direction, stay engaged, and don't quickly change their minds for the "flavor of the month."

Seven: Micromanaging. Micromanagement is the failure to delegate responsibility and authority around a task or project and instead inserting oneself to check up, change, modify, or redo work that is in progress or that has been done. It screams, "I don't trust you to do this right," and often, "I want you to do this my way." So, it is about a lack of trust and needing to do things the leader's way. It is profoundly disempowering behavior.

Healthy leaders set boundaries and empower good people to do their work without undue interference. They don't insist that the work be done the way they might and are very careful about interfering in the process. 

Eight: Lack of appreciation. Leaders have a gift that many others don't have. They have staff available to help them do what needs to be done. They can delegate and get all the help they need. However, the key to healthy staff is to treat them with respect, dignity, and appreciation. When staff feel used, leaders lose coinage—a lot of it. Lack of appreciation creates a feeling among staff that they are being used, which creates cynicism toward leadership.

Healthy leaders never take staff for granted. They show their appreciation in their words, attitudes, and acts of kindness toward those on their teams. Their staff know that their leader is deeply appreciative of their efforts.

Nine: Narcissistic tendencies. To put this one in perspective, each of the behaviors listed above are, in fact, narcissistic behaviors. They are about me: What I want and choose to do rather than how I can best serve the mission and the staff of the organization I lead. Narcissism is the antithesis of servant leadership. Our leadership is not about me but about those we lead and the mission we steward. All leaders have narcissistic tendencies. That is part of the human condition. The question is whether we recognize those tendencies, work to counter them, and manage our shadow side. Narcissistic behaviors include wanting our own way, lack of collaboration and listening to others, treating others poorly, lack of accountability, believing too highly in ourselves, taking credit for success and blaming others for failure and the list could go on. 

Healthy leaders recognize and counterbalance their narcissistic tendencies with a servant-like attitude toward their staff. They also allow trusted colleagues to talk with them when those tendencies show themselves.

Ten: Lack of genuine relationships. A key ingredient to a healthy culture is getting to know those who report to us. Without an authentic relationship, staff will likely not be candid with us. Relationships mean that we take the time to get to know our staff. We ask them questions, learn about their situations, and relate to them as fellow human beings rather than simply staff.

Healthy leaders get to know their staff and create trust and understanding.

A healthy organizational culture is fostered in the little and the big things. The culture will rarely rise above the practices of the head of the organization or the head of the team you lead. Take your assignment seriously, and don't sabotage the culture by unhealthy practices. As a Master Certified Coach in Intelligent Leadership I can help you improve the culture in your organization. You can contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.